No I am claiming that 5% of the gross does not exist in a tax calculation.

I think someone asked how much was saved, correct? If you'd like I can express the number in different terms. Percentage of net income? Percentages in the bracket or specific references to policies my tax burden? Whatever you'd like, champ.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), speaking with a gaggle of reporters after the event, said that while state Sen. Scott Brown (R) offers voters a quick fix, in reality, the problems created by "George Bush and his cronies" are not so easily solved.

It never ends. Notice that they almost never identify what these problems are. When they do, they don't say how "George Bush and his cronies" caused them.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

You can't support that, either. It's a perception you hold. Nothing more.

Quote:

Need I remind you he's only been out of office for a year?

And how long will it be before it's been long enough?

Quote:

By the way SDW.....It's still Bush's fault!

I realize that is an attempt at humor or provocation (possibly both), however it proves my point better than I could. It will always be Bush's fault...no matter what. If Iran nukes Israel, it will be Bush's fault. If unemployment goes to 15%, it will be Bush's fault. If we default on our debt...it will be Bush's fault. It doesn't matter how much time has passed...one year, two years, four years, eight years. Obama inherited a "disaster" caused by "the worst President of all time." Pretty much anything he does--or doesn't do (so long as he tried) will be better. That's the talking point.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I realize that is an attempt at humor or provocation (possibly both), however it proves my point better than I could. It will always be Bush's fault...no matter what. If Iran nukes Israel, it will be Bush's fault. If unemployment goes to 15%, it will be Bush's fault. If we default on our debt...it will be Bush's fault. It doesn't matter how much time has passed...one year, two years, four years, eight years. Obama inherited a "disaster" caused by "the worst President of all time." Pretty much anything he does--or doesn't do (so long as he tried) will be better. That's the talking point.

Also, anything that happens that is perceived to be good, any current policy that is perceived to have a favorable result, any decrease in unemployment, etc. will credited to Obama, regardless of whether he or his policies have anything to do with it.

You can't support that, either. It's a perception you hold. Nothing more.

And how long will it be before it's been long enough?

I realize that is an attempt at humor or provocation (possibly both), however it proves my point better than I could. It will always be Bush's fault...no matter what. If Iran nukes Israel, it will be Bush's fault. If unemployment goes to 15%, it will be Bush's fault. If we default on our debt...it will be Bush's fault. It doesn't matter how much time has passed...one year, two years, four years, eight years. Obama inherited a "disaster" caused by "the worst President of all time." Pretty much anything he does--or doesn't do (so long as he tried) will be better. That's the talking point.

Quote:

It's a perception you hold. Nothing more.

Me and a lot of voters.

Quote:

And how long will it be before it's been long enough?

Well I could say as long as the Democrats had to deal with a republican only government. That would be about 6 years.

However I'd say if by the end of his first term if he still isn't doing what the majority of the american public wants then he'll pay the price. It's as simple as that. And please you know as well as I do you'd insist on the same terms if the situation were reversed.

About the rest Bush was a giant fucking mistake. You don't see it that way but many ( most ) do. So get used to it.
I know you'd rather we all forget but that just isn't in the cards I"m afraid.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Also, anything that happens that is perceived to be good, any current policy that is perceived to have a favorable result, any decrease in unemployment, etc. will credited to Obama, regardless of whether he or his policies have anything to do with it.

Excellent point. I left that out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

Me and a lot of voters.

Fair point. Though, it doesn't mean that's what actually happened.

Quote:

Well I could say as long as the Democrats had to deal with a republican only government. That would be about 6 years.

6 years?

Quote:

However I'd say if by the end of his first term if he still isn't doing what the majority of the american public wants then he'll pay the price. It's as simple as that. And please you know as well as I do you'd insist on the same terms if the situation were reversed.

I wasn't talking about "paying the price." I was talking about the time at which he will be considered responsible for outcomes. I suppose the result of that is losing his job.

Quote:

About the rest Bush was a giant fucking mistake. You don't see it that way but many ( most ) do. So get used to it.

I realize people have different opinions. However, what I take issue with is opinions that are not based on fact. When people say "Bush wrecked the economy," they expose themselves to be ignorant. They often can't answer what Bush did, exactly, to "wreck" the economy. SOME will counter with "he was all about the rich! he screwed us regular folks!" That sounds about as dumb as #1.

Quote:

I know you'd rather we all forget but that just isn't in the cards I"m afraid.

It would be hard to forget that people didn't like Bush very much at the end of his term. That doesn't make him a terrible President.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I wasn't talking about "paying the price." I was talking about the time at which he will be considered responsible for outcomes. I suppose the result of that is losing his job.

I realize people have different opinions. However, what I take issue with is opinions that are not based on fact. When people say "Bush wrecked the economy," they expose themselves to be ignorant. They often can't answer what Bush did, exactly, to "wreck" the economy. SOME will counter with "he was all about the rich! he screwed us regular folks!" That sounds about as dumb as #1.

It would be hard to forget that people didn't like Bush very much at the end of his term. That doesn't make him a terrible President.

Quote:

responsible for outcomes

Yes that's just it. We haven't had an " Outcome " yet. That won't happen until you can sum up his entire first term. SDW no one has ever judged a president on one year not even Bush.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

They judged him on 0 years. That's why they are all running around raving like lunatics. They divided by zero and it imploded their minds.

Clintons first year was not old Bush's fault of course. However Bush's first year was Clinton's fault. Reagan's and Bush 1's tax increases and deficits were Carter's fault. GW Bush's 3rd year was JFK's fault. His 4th year was Pontius fault. While his 5th year clearly was Obama's fault. It is obvious that Bush's 6th year was Tiger Woods fault. His 8th was absolutely Hillary's fault.

Yes that's just it. We haven't had an " Outcome " yet. That won't happen until you can sum up his entire first term. SDW no one has ever judged a president on one year not even Bush.

Disagree. Two terror attacks? 10% unemployment? $1.4 trillion deficit? Those are all outcomes. And Obama's policies contributed to them. We don't have to wait until the end of his first term to make any judgement whatsoever.

And jimmac, I don't know about you, but I have these things called "principles." I actually have beliefs about how things should and should not be done. I don't support what the man is doing, and that is all there is to it. I don't agree with him on spending, taxes, lack of American Exceptionalism, etc. I know his positions are wrong. What do you do...take shots in the dark?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Disagree. Two terror attacks? 10% unemployment? $1.4 trillion deficit? Those are all outcomes. And Obama's policies contributed to them. We don't have to wait until the end of his first term to make any judgement whatsoever.

And jimmac, I don't know about you, but I have these things called "principles." I actually have beliefs about how things should and should not be done. I don't support what the man is doing, and that is all there is to it. I don't agree with him on spending, taxes, lack of American Exceptionalism, etc. I know his positions are wrong. What do you do...take shots in the dark?

We could talk about Bush for a comparitive view if you like and the list is long.

Quote:

"principles."

You thought going to Iraq was ok. That was totally against my principles.

We know you're a grade A republican ( did Obama make all of that deficit or was it the product of other people as well? ) and wouldn't like Obama uinder any circumstances. But keep trying to blow something into a substancial point.

All during the Bush administration many of us brought up the idea that Bush was running the country into the ground. You ignored it. Now a year into a new president's term you want to blame the entire situation on the new guy.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

We could talk about Bush for a comparitive view if you like and the list is long.

What has Bush got to do with it? I wasn't comparing. For all the screaming you do about mention the "C" word, you cannot go a day without responding "But...BUSH!"

Quote:

You thought going to Iraq was ok. That was totally against my principles.

No, I doubt that. I think you just thought Bush was lying. You thought that it was all War for Oil and Cheney-Halliburton. I don't think you were against the idea in principle at all. You tell me.

Quote:

We know you're a grade A republican ( did Obama make all of that deficit or was it the product of other people as well? ) and wouldn't like Obama uinder any circumstances. But keep trying to blow something into a substancial point.

I am a conservative first. The Republican party fits my views much more closely than the Democratic party does. Both have serious problems in my view. I used to be a registered independent, but I decided I wanted to vote in PA primaries.

Obama and the deficit: The vast majority was, in fact his fault. The stimulus bill--which he fought for and passed with Democratic support--added $800 billion to the deficit. His economic policies and anti-business stance have created fear in the marketplace and hurt the economy, which further reduces revenues. How much was Bush responsible for? Probably the $300 billion or so of TARP money that was spent. Then again, someone came to him and said: "Sir, if we don't do this, our entire economic system will collapse." Either way, that's the number. So we went from $400 billion to $1.4 trillion in a year. That means Obama was responsible for at least $700 billion of NEW deficit spending.

Quote:

All during the Bush administration many of us brought up the idea that Bush was running the country into the ground. You ignored it. Now a year into a new president's term you want to blame the entire situation on the new guy.

Yes, you and others did that. But you didn't show how. The President came into office amidst a recession. He cut taxes, after which the economy recovered within two years. Revenues to the government went up as a result. Everyone--not just the rich--got tax relief. Unemployment during his term was lower than the average during the 70s, 80s and 90s. By 2005, Greenspan said the economy in the US was "the best he'd ever seen." Bush removed Saddam from power. Bush removed the Taliban from power. After 9/11, we had no major terror attacks, thanks to enhanced intelligence and better security measures. Running into the ground indeed. The Administration eve warned on Freddie and Fannie while people like Barney Frank ignored the issue. Yes, jimmac. Running into the ground indeed.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

What has Bush got to do with it? I wasn't comparing. For all the screaming you do about mention the "C" word, you cannot go a day without responding "But...BUSH!"

No, I doubt that. I think you just thought Bush was lying. You thought that it was all War for Oil and Cheney-Halliburton. I don't think you were against the idea in principle at all. You tell me.

I am a conservative first. The Republican party fits my views much more closely than the Democratic party does. Both have serious problems in my view. I used to be a registered independent, but I decided I wanted to vote in PA primaries.

Obama and the deficit: The vast majority was, in fact his fault. The stimulus bill--which he fought for and passed with Democratic support--added $800 billion to the deficit. His economic policies and anti-business stance have created fear in the marketplace and hurt the economy, which further reduces revenues. How much was Bush responsible for? Probably the $300 billion or so of TARP money that was spent. Then again, someone came to him and said: "Sir, if we don't do this, our entire economic system will collapse." Either way, that's the number. So we went from $400 billion to $1.4 trillion in a year. That means Obama was responsible for at least $700 billion of NEW deficit spending.

Yes, you and others did that. But you didn't show how. The President came into office amidst a recession. He cut taxes, after which the economy recovered within two years. Revenues to the government went up as a result. Everyone--not just the rich--got tax relief. Unemployment during his term was lower than the average during the 70s, 80s and 90s. By 2005, Greenspan said the economy in the US was "the best he'd ever seen." Bush removed Saddam from power. Bush removed the Taliban from power. After 9/11, we had no major terror attacks, thanks to enhanced intelligence and better security measures. Running into the ground indeed. The Administration eve warned on Freddie and Fannie while people like Barney Frank ignored the issue. Yes, jimmac. Running into the ground indeed.

Calm down SDW! You'll break something!

Quote:

Bush removed Saddam from power

While we should have gone after OSBL " Smoke em' out! " I guess in that case it more like " Smoke em' if you got em' ".

Quote:

He cut taxes, after which the economy recovered within two years.

Jobs took much longer ( you know the thing you're harping about now ).

Thank you for your opinion as someone here would say.

Quote:

For all the screaming you do about mention the "C" word, you cannot go a day without responding "But...BUSH!"

We've been all over this many times. It's still Bush's still fault. He was in charge ( total charge for 6 out of 8 years ) He was a really lousy president and I wish I had a dollar for everytime you brought up Clinton ( to compare ) in the last decade so please!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

While we should have gone after OSBL " Smoke em' out! " I guess in that case it more like " Smoke em' if you got em' ".

Fair enough. He didn't get bin Laden. It doesn't make him a poor President.

Quote:

Jobs took much longer ( you know the thing you're harping about now ).

Jobs always take longer. Unemployment is a lagging indicator, especially as the economy improves. But employment did come back, and quite strongly.

Quote:

Thank you for your opinion as someone here would say.

Yup. It's my opinion. It's also one that is well based in fact. Opinions are not invalid just because they are opinions. It's a question of whether the opinion is supported and reasonable. Perhaps you could explain which part of what I posted about Bush is not so. Were taxes not cut for nearly everyone? Did revenue not go up? Did we have dozens of terrorist attacks after 9/11?

Quote:

We've been all over this many times. It's still Bush's still fault. He was in charge ( total charge for 6 out of 8 years ) He was a really lousy president and I wish I had a dollar for everytime you brought up Clinton ( to compare ) in the last decade so please!

I hope everyone can see what's happened here. We were talking about Obama. However, jimmac has managed (tried) to turn the entire discussion into one on Bush. It's amazing. It's either "It's not Obama's fault" or the standard "But Bush did..." comparison.

Both blaming Bush and calling him a "lousy" President are points that can't even be taken seriously. On the first point, Bush's record speaks for itself. The economy was strong for most of his Presidency and the nation was relatively free of terror attacks. Both of these can be directly traced to Bush policies.

On the second point: It's funny that after you get done saying we can't even start to judge Obama the end of his first term, you are more than willing to judge Bush's entire presidency after just one year out of office. It's hard to believe that any objective look at his entire presidency would conclude it was a total failure. The same has to be said for the previous President. While I didn't like him, one can't deny that his presidency wasn't ALL bad. I suppose you don't see things in those terms, though.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

but I have these things called "principles." I actually have beliefs about how things should and should not be done.

Believing = not knowing.
Keep these and all other beliefs you may have to yourself. Ever heard of religious freedom? This is a political forum.
Important:
1) Make sure to fold your hands correctly when you pray to Sarah, goddess of no IQ.
2) You are not supposed to play with your things after dinner.

Believing = not knowing.
Keep these and all other beliefs you may have to yourself. Ever heard of religious freedom? This is a political forum.
Important:
1) Make sure to fold your hands correctly when you pray to Sarah, goddess of no IQ.
2) You are not supposed to play with your things after dinner.

No news here everybody move on...

What?

Principles have no place on this forum? Is that right?

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

Fair enough. He didn't get bin Laden. It doesn't make him a poor President.

Jobs always take longer. Unemployment is a lagging indicator, especially as the economy improves. But employment did come back, and quite strongly.

Yup. It's my opinion. It's also one that is well based in fact. Opinions are not invalid just because they are opinions. It's a question of whether the opinion is supported and reasonable. Perhaps you could explain which part of what I posted about Bush is not so. Were taxes not cut for nearly everyone? Did revenue not go up? Did we have dozens of terrorist attacks after 9/11?

I hope everyone can see what's happened here. We were talking about Obama. However, jimmac has managed (tried) to turn the entire discussion into one on Bush. It's amazing. It's either "It's not Obama's fault" or the standard "But Bush did..." comparison.

Both blaming Bush and calling him a "lousy" President are points that can't even be taken seriously. On the first point, Bush's record speaks for itself. The economy was strong for most of his Presidency and the nation was relatively free of terror attacks. Both of these can be directly traced to Bush policies.

On the second point: It's funny that after you get done saying we can't even start to judge Obama the end of his first term, you are more than willing to judge Bush's entire presidency after just one year out of office. It's hard to believe that any objective look at his entire presidency would conclude it was a total failure. The same has to be said for the previous President. While I didn't like him, one can't deny that his presidency wasn't ALL bad. I suppose you don't see things in those terms, though.

Quote:

It's also one that is well based in fact

The facts as you see them That's not even shared by the majority.

And if you don't like bringing Bush into the mix I suggest leaving his name out of the title of the thread next time.

Quote:

you are more than willing to judge Bush's entire presidency after just one year out of office

What??????

Say what????

On the one hand we have this :

Quote:

On the first point, Bush's record speaks for itself. The economy was strong for most of his Presidency and the nation was relatively free of terror attacks. Both of these can be directly traced to Bush policies.

That's you judging him only one year after he was out of office. But on the other hand when it's what you don't like we can't judge him right now?

You're not even making sense anymore! And before you start his time in office is over. A person can only consider the whole at this point. Everything he did bad or good. It's not a work in progress anymore.

I'm sorry but this isn't a case of is the cup half full or empty he had 8 long years to prove himself! As long as any president under our system can have. 2 terms remember? And this isn't like a fine wine. It doesn't get better with age. The effects are being felt by us right now!

That's 8 times the amount of time Obama has had. A ratio of 8:1! Of all the statements you've made over the years that has to be the crazyest!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Keep these and all other beliefs you may have to yourself. Ever heard of religious freedom? This is a political forum.
Important:
1) Make sure to fold your hands correctly when you pray to Sarah, goddess of no IQ.
2) You are not supposed to play with your things after dinner.

No news here everybody move on...

Thanks for the ad-hom. I won't respond in kind.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

What does that have to do with it? Unlike you I don't base my political opinions upon how many agree with me.

Quote:

And if you don't like bringing Bush into the mix I suggest leaving his name out of the title of the thread next time.

That's totally out of context on multiple levels. It's another first. It's out of context not once, but twice removed! The thread was about Obama blaming Bush. Not only did you try to make it about you blaming Bush, but you ignored that the context of the surrounding posts concerned Obama's actions. Wow. Never seen that level of obfuscation before. It's....impressive.

Quote:

What??????

Say what????

On the one hand we have this :

That's you judging him only one year after he was out of office. But on the other hand when it's what you don't like we can't judge him right now?

No, it's evaluating the effect of Bush policies to date. It's evaluating actions compared to my own personal political philosophy. I don't know how history will judge him.

Quote:

You're not even making sense anymore! And before you start his time in office is over. A person can only consider the whole at this point. Everything he did bad or good. It's not a work in progress anymore.

OK, I suppose one could. But that's not what you're doing. You're looking at the current situation and concluding that he is responsible for it in total, all while ignoring the current President's actions. It's silly.

Quote:

I'm sorry but this isn't a case of is the cup half full or empty he had 8 long years to prove himself! As long as any president under our system can have. 2 terms remember? And this isn't like a fine wine. It doesn't get better with age. The effects are being felt by us right now!

See, there you go. You can't or won't show how his policies led to our current economic situation (just for example). You're just blindly assigning blame because it feels good. You've been asked at least 10 times to provide support for your position that Bush caused the situation. You ignore said request every time.

Quote:

That's 8 times the amount of time Obama has had. A ratio of 8:1! Of all the statements you've made over the years that has to be the crazyest!

And Obama has miraculously done more damage in one year than anyone over the past 200 years. That's a ratio of 200:1!

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

What does that have to do with it? Unlike you I don't base my political opinions upon how many agree with me.

That's totally out of context on multiple levels. It's another first. It's out of context not once, but twice removed! The thread was about Obama blaming Bush. Not only did you try to make it about you blaming Bush, but you ignored that the context of the surrounding posts concerned Obama's actions. Wow. Never seen that level of obfuscation before. It's....impressive.

No, it's evaluating the effect of Bush policies to date. It's evaluating actions compared to my own personal political philosophy. I don't know how history will judge him.

OK, I suppose one could. But that's not what you're doing. You're looking at the current situation and concluding that he is responsible for it in total, all while ignoring the current President's actions. It's silly.

See, there you go. You can't or won't show how his policies led to our current economic situation (just for example). You're just blindly assigning blame because it feels good. You've been asked at least 10 times to provide support for your position that Bush caused the situation. You ignore said request every time.

And Obama has miraculously done more damage in one year than anyone over the past 200 years. That's a ratio of 200:1!

I'm sorry but it's difficult to take you seriously after your last post.

The thing is SDW that we really have talked about some of the things Bush was doing wrong while he was doing them! Fighting an unnecessary war during a time of economic strife. Your answer " War helps the economy ". Well it really helped didn't it? And why the hell were we there again? Which made up reason?

Meanwhile OSBL is taking a powder. And what was that I heard on that recent report that we could have caught him but we decided to not persue at just the right time? But I guess you don't arrest friends of the family.

My accountant used to laugh ( not just him but the entire firm ) about the Bush kickback checks. Sure let's send everyone $600.00 bucks! That'll do it! Then we'll spend money like water and cut back taxes so nothing's paid for!

True he sarted during a recession also. Nothing like this one of course. But he went through the surplus ( from the previous administration and yes I know you think it didn't exist even though everyone else does ) he had at the time in 6 months.

And then there was his assault on our privacy ( wiretapping ). Yes I know you think it was just fine ( yeah that's why it was ruled unconstitutional and shut down for those of you worried about what Obama's doing in relation to the constitution ).

About 911 where he spent critical minutes reading to children like a deer in the headlights instead of excusing himself, getting up, and doing his job! He didn't have to panic anyone! That's just stupid.

About immigration I think we already have a big wall somewhere. About Katrina : Late to the party. His attitude about science and things like oh stem cell research. Totally stupid. Thank god we're making some progress now. That thing you call imaginary. What's it called? Oh yeah Global Warming! He set us back there to!

As a leader he sucked! And here we are right after his last term and guess what? Things are so fucked the current president can't even work on an agenda. He's going to be too busy fixing things broken during the last guy!

There's nothing blind about this. When you take responsibility for a job you take the consequences. You don't try to shift the blame. It's your job! Not his/hers that might make another target for distraction!
Then of course you'll say it's not his fault. After 8 years? And to that I'll quote another president " The buck stops here! ". After 8 years it should!

Then of course you'll say " Well the president really isn't in charge of things " ( another deflection ). Then why are you guys so mad at Obama?

I really don't want to vote for a party that thinks it's leaders don't have to take the consequences for their actions or lack thereof . However that's one of the reasons republican reform will be happening. This kind of dodge the responsibility bullet isn't getting them elected in a national sense.

The thing about this economic crisis is if Bush was so good why the hell didn't he do something about it when it was happening? And no SDW it didn't just happen in the last two years we had a democratic congress. The guy was in charge! For a long time! That brings us back to where we always end up. Either he's just an evil fucker or totally inept! I vote both.

There really is no point in talking to someone so delusional, polarized, and bizzaro ( " Only I can judge Bush and only when I want and I'll set the criteria " ).

What a crock!

And this one :

Quote:

And Obama has miraculously done more damage in one year than anyone over the past 200 years. That's a ratio of 200:1!

is just off the rails!

The only thing I can think of is you're really upset with the republican party's current situation and can't deal with it.

In the end SDW ( no matter how you slice it ) he was in charge with all of those resources at his finger tips! it's still Bush's fault!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

I'm sorry but it's difficult to take you seriously after your last post.

The thing is SDW that we really have talked about some of the things Bush was doing wrong while he was doing them! Fighting an unnecessary war during a time of economic strife. Your answer " War helps the economy ". Well it really helped didn't it? And why the hell were we there again? Which made up reason?

That wasn't my answer (though it often does help) and it's not the reason the war was started. The economy was much improved by the time the war started anyway. It didn't contribute to our current situation.

Quote:

Meanwhile OSBL is taking a powder. And what was that I heard on that recent report that we could have caught him but we decided to not persue at just the right time? But I guess you don't arrest friends of the family.

Even if that wasn't outrageous, it still wouldn't have anything to do with the issue at hand. How did Bush policies cause the financial situation we're in now?

Quote:

My accountant used to laugh ( not just him but the entire firm ) about the Bush kickback checks. Sure let's send everyone $600.00 bucks! That'll do it! Then we'll spend money like water and cut back taxes so nothing's paid for!

I don't support the rebates either. They weren't a GOP idea, but they happened under Bush. Either way, that didn't cause the meltdown either.

Quote:

True he sarted during a recession also. Nothing like this one of course. But he went through the surplus ( from the previous administration and yes I know you think it didn't exist even though everyone else does ) he had at the time in 6 months.

"The surplus" was not some bank account that we forgot about, jimmac. It was simply the actual and predicted difference in income v. spending. It was positive for a few years. Surpluses likely would have ended during 2001 anyway as the economy slowed. Also, note that the surplus was created by Republicans to begin with. Either way, it also had nothing to do with the economic meltdown.

Quote:

And then there was his assault on our privacy ( wiretapping ). Yes I know you think it was just fine ( yeah that's why it was ruled unconstitutional and shut down for those of you worried about what Obama's doing in relation to the constitution ).

We disagree about that. I do think it was not only fine, but indispensable. By the way, how was your privacy violated?

Quote:

About 911 where he spent critical minutes reading to children like a deer in the headlights instead of excusing himself, getting up, and doing his job! He didn't have to panic anyone! That's just stupid.

Oh stop. Now you just sound like sammi jo.

Quote:

About immigration I think we already have a big wall somewhere. About Katrina : Late to the party. His attitude about science and things like oh stem cell research. Totally stupid. Thank god we're making some progress now. That thing you call imaginary. What's it called? Oh yeah Global Warming! He set us back there to!

1. I didn't like his stance on immigration. You do realize he was a liberal on that issue, right?

2. Katrina: He could have handled it better, but it wasn't handled nearly as badly as many think. Many of the problems were not even at the federal level.

3. Bush was the first President to fund stem cell research. It wasn't banned. We just wouldn't use federal funding to create new lines. Bush's reasoning was that this was creating life for the purpose of destroying it. I don't have strong feelings on this issue. I understand both arguments.

4. Global Warming is a fraud. Since the last time we talked about this, MORE data has been shown to be unreliable.

Quote:

As a leader he sucked! And here we are right after his last term and guess what? Things are so fucked the current president can't even work on an agenda. He's going to be too busy fixing things broken during the last guy!

You've listed some things you don't like about Bush, but you've not shown which policies contributed to our fiscal and economic situation. As for the current President: Yes, he inherited some major problems. However, even if we blame every one of these problems on Bush, we cannot excuse Obama's conduct while in office. Obama has been an unmitigated nightmare. He's 5 times worse on spending. He's anti-business. He's not improved foreign relations. He's floundering in Afghanistan. He's broken his promises on transparency. None of this has anything to do with his predecessor.

Quote:

There's nothing blind about this. When you take responsibility for a job you take the consequences. You don't try to shift the blame. It's your job! Not his/hers that might make another target for distraction!

I can't believe you just posted that. Tell me...when will OBAMA do so?

Quote:

Then of course you'll say it's not his fault. After 8 years? And to that I'll quote another president " The buck stops here! ". After 8 years it should!

I've detailed which parts I think are Bush's fault. In terms of the economy, his administration's policies contributed to the "house of cards." In other words, they worked within the system. It turns out that major reform (or at least a huge correction) was needed. I think that's fair to put on him. Beyond that, I think you've failed to show what else he did to cause the meltdown.

Quote:

Then of course you'll say " Well the president really isn't in charge of things " ( another deflection ). Then why are you guys so mad at Obama?

I like how you attack me for "deflecting" using something that I've not posted. Bush can be blamed in some ways as I've described (see the other thead...I went through it more in detail). As for Obama, he's instituted policies that I don't agree with and have been ineffective.

Quote:

I really don't want to vote for a party that thinks it's leaders don't have to take the consequences for their actions or lack thereof.

So you voted...DEMOCRAT?!?

Quote:

However that's one of the reasons republican reform will be happening. This kind of dodge the responsibility bullet isn't getting them elected in a national sense.

Go on...tell me about national political problems for Republicans. Your party is in complete meltdown.

Quote:

The thing about this economic crisis is if Bush was so good why the hell didn't he do something about it when it was happening?

He did. He signed off on TARP. He proposed an economic stimulus and got it passed. One could say not enough was done. But I'd like to ask...what should have been done?

Quote:

And no SDW it didn't just happen in the last two years we had a democratic congress. The guy was in charge! For a long time! That brings us back to where we always end up.

Never said it did--or that Democrats were exclusively to blame. They had their hand in it though, particularly people like Barney Frank. We also had multiple attempts by Republicans to prevent the crisis.

Quote:

Either he's just an evil fucker or totally inept! I vote both.

and then....

Quote:

There really is no point in talking to someone so delusional, polarized, and bizzaro ( " Only I can judge Bush and only when I want and I'll set the criteria " ).

and then....

Quote:

What a crock!

Quote:

And this one :

is just off the rails!

The only thing I can think of is you're really upset with the republican party's current situation and can't deal with it.

In the end SDW ( no matter how you slice it ) he was in charge with all of those resources at his finger tips! it's still Bush's fault!

I am not upset with their situation at all. Have you read the polling? Did you see what just happened in the bluest of blue states? I'm not sure how someone can just totally ignore the political realities of today. It's as if you cannot accept that the political landscape has changed dramatically in the past 14 months.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

That wasn't my answer (though it often does help) and it's not the reason the war was started. The economy was much improved by the time the war started anyway. It didn't contribute to our current situation.

Even if that wasn't outrageous, it still wouldn't have anything to do with the issue at hand. How did Bush policies cause the financial situation we're in now?

I don't support the rebates either. They weren't a GOP idea, but they happened under Bush. Either way, that didn't cause the meltdown either.

"The surplus" was not some bank account that we forgot about, jimmac. It was simply the actual and predicted difference in income v. spending. It was positive for a few years. Surpluses likely would have ended during 2001 anyway as the economy slowed. Also, note that the surplus was created by Republicans to begin with. Either way, it also had nothing to do with the economic meltdown.

We disagree about that. I do think it was not only fine, but indispensable. By the way, how was your privacy violated?

Oh stop. Now you just sound like sammi jo.

1. I didn't like his stance on immigration. You do realize he was a liberal on that issue, right?

2. Katrina: He could have handled it better, but it wasn't handled nearly as badly as many think. Many of the problems were not even at the federal level.

3. Bush was the first President to fund stem cell research. It wasn't banned. We just wouldn't use federal funding to create new lines. Bush's reasoning was that this was creating life for the purpose of destroying it. I don't have strong feelings on this issue. I understand both arguments.

4. Global Warming is a fraud. Since the last time we talked about this, MORE data has been shown to be unreliable.

You've listed some things you don't like about Bush, but you've not shown which policies contributed to our fiscal and economic situation. As for the current President: Yes, he inherited some major problems. However, even if we blame every one of these problems on Bush, we cannot excuse Obama's conduct while in office. Obama has been an unmitigated nightmare. He's 5 times worse on spending. He's anti-business. He's not improved foreign relations. He's floundering in Afghanistan. He's broken his promises on transparency. None of this has anything to do with his predecessor.

I can't believe you just posted that. Tell me...when will OBAMA do so?

I've detailed which parts I think are Bush's fault. In terms of the economy, his administration's policies contributed to the "house of cards." In other words, they worked within the system. It turns out that major reform (or at least a huge correction) was needed. I think that's fair to put on him. Beyond that, I think you've failed to show what else he did to cause the meltdown.

I like how you attack me for "deflecting" using something that I've not posted. Bush can be blamed in some ways as I've described (see the other thead...I went through it more in detail). As for Obama, he's instituted policies that I don't agree with and have been ineffective.

Go on...tell me about national political problems for Republicans. Your party is in complete meltdown.

He did. He signed off on TARP. He proposed an economic stimulus and got it passed. One could say not enough was done. But I'd like to ask...what should have been done?

Never said it did--or that Democrats were exclusively to blame. They had their hand in it though, particularly people like Barney Frank. We also had multiple attempts by Republicans to prevent the crisis.

and then....

and then....

I am not upset with their situation at all. Have you read the polling? Did you see what just happened in the bluest of blue states? I'm not sure how someone can just totally ignore the political realities of today. It's as if you cannot accept that the political landscape has changed dramatically in the past 14 months.

It's still Bush's fault. It's as if you can't accept that we're in the down part of the cycle for you favorite party. I have to confess I knew you wouldn't take this well but I never knew you'd be this much in denial.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Thank you, and I mean that sincerely. You've answered a question that I've had for 8 years. The answer is that yes, you are in fact just trolling. It's been real, jimmac. You're on ignore from here on out. Have a nice life.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Thank you, and I mean that sincerely. You've answered a question that I've had for 8 years. The answer is that yes, you are in fact just trolling. It's been real, jimmac. You're on ignore from here on out. Have a nice life.

Ah! But you see from my point of view it's you that are sometimes the partisan troll!

You asked for proof and initially I gave it to you until this became a denial fest and you didn't like me dredging something up from the past ( that you didn't acknowledge back then ). The truth is SDW you have no aguments that hold water. So you obfuscate to cover that up. Well I've just had enough of the smoke and mirrors treatment so I stopped providing proof to someone who won't listen no matter what it is.

The only solution would be for me to become a good little republican that will never say anything bad about the party. That's not going to happen. Sorry.

Trying to assume a quasi superior position won't cut it either. Put me on ignore or don't it doesn't really matter to me because I'm talking to someone who can only see one side of things.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Thank you, and I mean that sincerely. You've answered a question that I've had for 8 years. The answer is that yes, you are in fact just trolling. It's been real, jimmac. You're on ignore from here on out. Have a nice life.

I am surprised you went that long...

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

Clintons first year was not old Bush's fault of course. However Bush's first year was Clinton's fault. Reagan's and Bush 1's tax increases and deficits were Carter's fault. GW Bush's 3rd year was JFK's fault. His 4th year was Pontius fault. While his 5th year clearly was Obama's fault. It is obvious that Bush's 6th year was Tiger Woods fault. His 8th was absolutely Hillary's fault.

Now that's funny!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Oh look, another lie. He'll blame this one on Bush too. "If we hadn't had those tax 'breaks' for the wealthy, we'd be able to keep your taxes from rising."

Quote:

NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --The Obama administration's plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.....

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax....

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;
* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;
* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;
* Individuals who don't itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;
* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.

Lying liars who lie.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Today the Obama administration unveiled its budget for FY 2011. The budget ostensibly covers the next ten years, but its projections for future years are meaningless. The only year for which it has any significance is 2011, in which it anticipates $3.8 trillion in spending and an astonishing $1.6 trillion deficit. In 2006, the last year in which the Republicans controlled Congress, the deficit was $248 billion--one-seventh what Obama proposes for next year.

In his budget announcement today, Obama said: "[O]ur government is deeply in debt after what can only be described as a decade of profligacy." So he proposes to put the country far more deeply in debt through profligacy of a sort that was undreamed of just a few years ago.

Obama said: "[W]e can't simply move beyond this crisis; we have to address the irresponsibility that led to it, and that includes the failure to rein in spending...." But his budget doesn't rein in spending, it increases it over last year's precedent-shattering total by around $100 billion.

Obama said: "[I]t would be a terrible mistake to borrow against our children's future to pay our way today...." His budget, in just the next year, will borrow $1.6 trillion against our children's future to pay our way today.

Either Obama has completely lost touch with reality, or he thinks we have.

UPDATE: One more thing. The Wall Street Journal estimates that Obama's proposed repeal of many of the Bush tax cuts will cost Americans who earn more than $200,000 per year $1 trillion over the next decade, assuming that Obama's tax increases are not reversed. Obama won in 2008 with what Michael Barone called a "top and bottom coalition." He carried lower-income voters and those with incomes over $250,000, while middle-income voters went for McCain. Now, Obama can kiss the top part of that coalition goodbye.

I keep wondering how long this strange sort of delusion can go on. Obama acknowledges the problem while actively piling on to it. It's almost like he could say "our government has spent the last decade raping women and killing children" while doing just that in your living room and somehow believes that the majority wouldn't notice it is his hands engaging in the action.

Does he think he is a real jedi or something of that nature? Are the American people the weak minded creatures he is waving his hands at while chanting "These are not the deficits you are looking for...."